The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INCA Internet

[edit]

Article about an aparrently non-notable company (the only reference which attempts to assert notability states that it was 339th in an Asia-Pacific only list of companies based on growth) and which currently appears only to be WP:SPAM based on the WP:COI of the contributing editor, overly WP:PEACOCK-ish prose, and marketing speak particularly in the product range. Problems with the references, as noted in the discussion page. WP:COATRACK issues include using the article as a biography of the CEO. Ros0709 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but question Ros0709's claim of notability of INCA Internet. 339th fastest growing corporation of Asia-Pacific list by Deloitte was made to recognize notable companies of today. Picked as one the of 50 fastest growing in Korea is also a recognition of notability. Although the corporation has not received american recognition awards, please do not consider Korean awards less worthy of recognition for corporations of their country. Because the corporation is not located in US, many of the citations are not in Korean, but anybody who questions the authenticity of the articles may transalte the article and verify the validity. I have fixed the parts of the article claimed as peacock-ish to have a more neutral POV. I have requested to further please point out any other parts that may still need correction to better this article, but it seems against the ideals of Wikipedia to just delete the article, when there are still people trying to better it. As for the Biography of the CEO, I just followed the article of General_Electric. If people feel that the part is worthy of an article of itself, I do not mind making it a separate article. I just thought the information was not enough to be an article of itself. As for the deletion of the POV-check tag, I was not aware of the procedure and do apologize for the hasty removal. Furthermore, please help by pointing out parts that need further improvements and sign your posts on talk pages. Thank you for the time. Kevinkph85 (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevinkph85 in that INCA Internet seems to be a notable company in Korea due to some of the awards it has won. However, the Wikipedia article on the company seems to be in serious need of more sources and a rewrite. In the first paragraph alone I cannot verify two sentences (RE: market share and number of users) using the reference links available. The market share sentence even shows up again word for word in the second paragraph. Also, the products list seems slightly like advertisement, although I have no idea how to fix it.

I have used Google Translate to 'read' over the linked Korean news articles and it was a very painful process because the translations are very very broken. I therefore suggest that perhaps this article should be put into WikiProject_Korea so that more people who can read the news articles can scrutinize it and add more input to it. aibyou_chan (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why we shouldn't keep and article for one of the 50 fastest-growing companies in Korea, and one with this much usage -- assuming, of course, that the sources are good (and I can't read the Korean ones). It does need reworking for certain. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows the company is the subject of, or mentioned in hundreds of articles in Korean as well as in English. I would work on the article, but software corporations are not in my line of interest or expertise. Nevertheless, AfD is not for improving an article, but for judging whether that article's subject is worthy of an article here. Even if the article is not currently in good shape, the wide mainstream news coverage indicates that this corporation deserves an encyclopedia article, and that a fine one can be put together from the sources easily available. Dekkappai (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article at first glance looks well written and I can easily find the notability in reliable English sources.[1][2] I don't see why the article should be deleted.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.